Did he say what risk you would have of a heart attack if you took statins? 42% sounds awfully precise, he must be an incredibly diagnostic medic. It seems that statins cause significant muscle problems in some patients, what concerns me is what taking them has done to my heart muscle..the heart is just a very complicated muscle. I certainly think atorvastatin pushed me over the prediabetic fence into being classed as diabetic! D.
Ah, statistics.
Roughly 80% of T2 diabetics are over weight or obese on diagnosis. Non-diabetics who are overweight or obese also have a raised risk. Poorly controlled diabetes can restake in damage to the nervous and vascular system.
So the statistics include morbidly obese diabetics with enormously elevated blood glucose who are already suffering extreme consequences such as blindness and amputation.
If you are slim and fit then your individual risk factor is probably lower.
42% chance? So neay half the posters here have had or will have an incident?
Or 42% higher chance? In which case what is the original figure.
Maybe it affects some muscles differently? I've never once read anyone has been stopped playing marbles as it affected muscles in the thumb for example , so maybe your heart muscle will be ok. Probably worth a look with Google to reassure you, as that does seem to list the muscles that may be affected in some small cases.Did he say what risk you would have of a heart attack if you took statins? 42% sounds awfully precise, he must be an incredibly diagnostic medic. It seems that statins cause significant muscle problems in some patients, what concerns me is what taking them has done to my heart muscle..the heart is just a very complicated muscle. I certainly think atorvastatin pushed me over the prediabetic fence into being classed as diabetic! D.
New evidence seems to suggest that lowering cholesterol levels in women especially has a negligible and possibly negative effect on the chances of them living longer. i.e. higher cholesterol levels leads to longer life. There is also current research going on that may well show that cholesterol levels, like blood sugar levels, are dynamic and may change during the day - possibly dependent on what you have eaten. So your Dr or nI'm ol(who is extremely unlikely to know about the fluctuations) will test you and prescribe a drug which they think you should take for life based on a single snapshot of your cholesterol levels at the time of doing the test. Which would be similar to diagnosing diabetes on a single finger prick test. Crazy? maybe but that is what currently happens. Criminal.. again possibly. Please remember what you put in your body is up to you and not up to your HCP's. The benefits of statins for older women are probably non existent (at least that is what my extensive reading has shown). This is just some random person on the internet and I am in no way a medical professional but I would heartily recommend spending some time on researching statins and their "benefits".
As I'm sure you know the best thing you could do is stop smoking.. but as an ex smoker I also know how easy that is to say and how hard to do. All the best though.Thanks bulkbiker and bluetit. I seem to remember something I heard on the news about the so called benefits of statins which I mentioned to my new gp. He did the calculation and said that because I have been dx with T2, high cholestrol and I'm a smoker my risk was 42%. He did not say anything about how much statins could lower that risk. To be honest, a generalised figure of 50-50 did not shock me because there is a long history of heart attack in my family i.e I know how I'm going to kick the bucket. (All heart readings and blood pressure have been normal)
Absolutely agree. Stopping smoking is better for you than all of the other dietary recommendations we spend so much time debating put together.As I'm sure you know the best thing you could do is stop smoking.. but as an ex smoker I also know how easy that is to say and how hard to do. All the best though.
I think Statins make a high BG less harmful
very true however as elevated blood glucose levels seem to be a precursor to many other diseases then it is certainly worth doing all we can to keep it under control.a low BG is of no value if you die due to something else
Thanks @Indy51 finally got to meet the main man..and hear him speak.Love your new profile pic, @bulkbiker
I'd love to see those results. Let's look rather at 'number needed to treat', a useful indication of a drug's efficacyThere have been very large scale trails that show taking Statins increase length of life
My point being that as far as I am aware the risk factor is having Diabetes. Not a subset of those with normal weight and good blood glucose control.The QRISK2 calculation isn't calculated quite like that. If the 42% is from the Qrisk, which I imagine it is, then it means she has a 42% risk from everyone with identical risk factors to herself, not a 42% risk overall. In other words, in a crowd of 100 people with the same risk factors as @Guzzler , 42 are likely to have a heart attack or stroke within the next 10 years.